Unfair advantages

As a sports fan, I appreciate competition. I revel in a hard-fought game. If an underdog wins, better yet.

But there's the other side of the sports coin. It's comprised of dynasties, unfairness, gamesmanship, and it makes me sick.

There are some teams that I find repugnant. I loathe the NY Yankees for various reasons, not the least of which is that they play on an unlevel playing field. With the YES network, they have an inexhaustible fountain of money that enriches the entire organization, from the big league team down to the minor league clubs. Sure, they contribute to the luxury tax or revenue share, whichever you want to call it, but there's no doubt they have a disproportionate share of revenues compared to many, many teams. Add to that that they were among the last MLB teams to integrate and it adds up to an Evil Empire.

The Mets deserve inclusion for the simple reason that they defeated my beloved '69 Cubs. Of course, they also had a cocaine-influenced team that won the '86 World Series. I despise the Mets.

Then there are college teams. The Michigan Wolverines football team just makes me want to hurl. Many Wolverine fans think this is pure envy at their success on the field. Not so. I admire the institution as one of the finest public universities in the country. I absolutely love the state. And my girl is from there. But that football team has been cheating for years and getting away with it. I'm not talking about DickRod stuff; that's small potatoes. The players who have attended Michigan are no different than those that attend other schools other than the fact that they may be better athletes; better students they aren't. Listen to some of the players that come out of that school and you'll hear articulate people and others that can't string together a simple declarative sentence.

If that were all to it, you might say that sour grapes was the reason. But even the refs favor the Evil Empire. Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyG_GBHSTsY&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PLC0428BEB2B18540F

The Big Ten apologized to Illinois after it happened, but that's all it did. The next year, the EE was playing at MSU and the clock operator took liberties starting the clock that hurt the EE. Not only the Big Ten apologize, it instituted instant replay the next season. Only when the EE was affected did the Big Ten feel the need to step in and try to make things right.

The same thing happens in college hoops. Two sacred cows of NCAA basketball are Kentucky and North Carolina. Illinois was screwed by both schools in the NCAA tournament. In 1984, Illinois had to play Kentucky in Rupp Arena, Kentucky's home court. Check out what happened: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG-KN_fILYo. As with the Big Ten's decision on instant replay, the NCAA later enacted a rule that schools couldn't play in tournament games on their home floors. Of course, this was after the fact.

In 2005, Illinois played North Carolina in the national title game. Illinois had lost one game until then. The refs made the game a complete joke. Illinois played poorly, no doubt, but the refs allowed North Carolina to do whatever it wanted, and if Illinois even came near the Tar Heels they called Illinois for a foul. Despite this, Illinois only lost by five points. Later, the Tar Heels would have four players drafted in the first round of the NBA draft to Illinois' two. Yet the refs felt they had to assist North Carolina because, after all, North Carolina is a sacred cow of college basketball.

Another element of sports that upsets me is the fad from Euroland that is nothing more than gamesmanship, better known as flopping. It seems to have started in soccer, where players dry to draw fouls by rolling for yards after a tackle, acting as if they've been hamstrung by the contact with their opponent. They thrash back and forth on the field as the ref looks down at them, sometimes granting the sought-after foul or, more recently, shaking their heads at their lame attempts. As the ball makes it way down the field, the player lies on the ground cluthing a body part that, obviously, will require surgery after the game, until the inevitable miracle occurs and he leaps up to get the ball in an advantageous position to score a goal. Their basketball brethern have taken a page from the soccer playbook and now act as if they've been hit by a Mack truck anytime their come in contact with an opponent, flying backwards with such histrionics that somewhere Laurence Olivier is grimacing. The idea of both strategies is to gain favor and fouls from the referees.

Competition is what makes sports enjoyable. But competition is supposed to start with a basic premise that the setting is fair -- both baskets are at ten feet high, the pitchers both throw from sixty feet, six inches, hockey players' sticks aren't curved too much for one team, both football teams play with eleven players. When, on the other hand, one team has a built-in advantage, it ceases being competition, or enjoyable.

(c) 2012 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Coincidences

I like to read. I try to read a variety of subjects, but still the tendency is for me to read more non-fiction than fiction. I've been told by those close to me that I have a slight problem. I refer to myself as a voracious reader. Whatever the case, there is no question that I like books.

Given my profession, I pick up on patterns. For example, Ernie Banks hit his five hundreth home run on May 12, 1970 (5.12.70). He ended up with 512 career home runs. Perhaps no one else would notice this, but I would.

I've noticed a similar pattern with my reading. The closest person in my life downplays it as mere coincidence. I refer to it as eerie. I know of no other way to describe it.

When I read a book, I find, something happens that bears an eerie connection to something in real life. For example, when I read the book Unbroken, about Louie Zamperini, I began the book on January 26. When I began reading the book, I discovered that that was his birthday. Another time I was reading a book on the American Revolution. Some Brit personage named Urquhart figured in the story. A day or so later I drove by a store named Urquhart's. Most people would readily agree that Urquhart is not a name commonly found in America.

I started reading an exposé on Coca-Cola virtually on the same day it was invented. What are the odds of this happening? Mere coincidence can't be the only explanation.

One of the weirdest happenings involved an otherwise innocent book called Big Game, Small World, about basketball's spread across the globe. In it, the author travels to tiny nation of Bhutan where basketball has really taken root. He describes playing in a pick-up game with Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck, the crown prince, who is an avid player. That same month the prince announced his engagement and marriage to Jetsun Pema. The chances that I would ever read a book about Bhutan are slim and none, yet I read a book about hoops wherein this prince figures and within the same month he gets engaged and married, making international news.

Mere coincidence? I think not.

(c) 2012 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Latinos and English

I'm not Latin, but I speak Spanish. I probably speak it better than many güeros, but not as well as I should considering the amount of Spanish-language instruction I've had. Whatever the case, I know enough to admire the language and the various cultures in which it's used.

That being said, I am firmly of the opinion that anyone coming to this country ought to use English as the language for all official transactions. Anything involving government -- whether it be voting, getting a driver's license or buying real property -- should be done in English. Catering to every language group is not only senseless, it's expensive.

Many immigrants have arrived in America and struggled to learn English. Heavy accents and fractured syntax were to be expected, but it allowed the new citizens to blend in.

Nowadays, Latinos complain that by forcing them to learn English, whites are robbing them of their heritage. Nothing could be further from the truth. Latinos are ruining their own linguistic heritage in this country.

Neologismos or anglicismos are Spanish words that are made to look like and sound like English words. These are often words that are rooted in English and made to look or sound Spanish by putting different endings on them. One false neologismo is problemo; the correct word that already exists is the cognate problema. But this is a word that Americans make up to try to sound Spanish; Latins make up words that sound more sophisticated but in fact are just as ridiculous.

For example, the verb to park is, correctly in Spanish, estacionarse. Latins now parquear. To lunch is, properly, almorzar; now, it's lonchear. To apply for a job or a position is solicitar, not aplicar (which means, correctly to apply something to another thing, such as apply paste to wallpaper. To sweep is barrer, not brumar, which was laughably taken from broom. There are countless other examples of how Latins are ruining their own language without any help from Americans.

What makes the argument even more ludicrous is that Latin American countries do not do likewise for Americans, putting everything in English simply because the American has chosen to live there. Yet, were these Americans asked whether having to learn Spanish meant that they were being robbed of their culture, few if any would agree that by having to learn the language of the country in which they had chosen to live were they losing their American identity. If anything, they would admit that they were gaining another culture to add to their own.

Other ethnic groups have survived the imposition of English. Latins will do the same. It's time for them to quit being sissies and learn English.

(c) 2012 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Racism and the POTUS

Hollywood is full of liberals. As is said, everyone is entitled to his opinion. But in Hollywood, the liberals dominate.

Shortly after Obama's inauguration, when conservatives were attacking him for his health care initiative (full disclosure: I don't know enough to agree or disagree with it, but I think that jobs should have been first on the agenda despite the fact that I don't have health insurance and haven't had any since I lost my job in 2008), a second- or third-tier actress and erstwhile comedienne came out and infamously declared that This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up.

Well.

If Martin Luther King's words are correct, we should not judge a person by the content of his character and not by the color of his skin, or words to that effect. Not to put too fine a point on it, but King did not say that a man -- irrespective of his skin color -- could not be judged. But that it should be, to paraphrase, on merit and not looks.

This actress (if you haven't read between the lines...she's white) and some blacks seem to think that by criticizing the POTUS or any other person of color necessarily is a racist act. Racism lurks behind any action taken by a member of the majority that involves a person of a racial minority. Following that logic, I suppose, when we vote for a member of a minority to receive an award, we are ipso facto using race as the reason.

In fact, that we can criticize the POTUS or any other black person should mean that they're being treated as equals. So long as there is no discernible racist bent to the criticism, we should start treating reasoned criticism as being an equalizing, not a polarizing, act. Liberals and blacks who have a knee-jerk reaction that any criticism of the POTUS is grounded in racism need to bring themselves into the twenty-first century and pay heed to King's dictum. Likewise, conservatives had better make sure that whatever criticisms they lodge against Obama or other minority leaders are devoid of racist motives.

There is plenty of racism in this country. We have not eradicated it just like we haven't eradicated HIV and AIDS. But it is high time that we do a better job identifying and defeating true racism and stop being such ninnies and seeing bogeymen behind every opposition.

(c) 2012 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

St. Patrick's Day, 2012

I'm Irish. Not just the typical American way, by heritage, but I'm a dual citizen. I acquired my Irish citizenship before the Dáil closed down a legal loophole. As I type this, I'm looking at my Irish passport.

Consequently, I don't drink green beer on St. Patrick's Day, nor do I dress up in green and effect a horrible Irish brogue. I take my Irish heritage seriously and, more than that, I take Irish history more seriously than a heart attack.

We Irish are infamous for holding grudges. That may well be true, but when you as a people have suffered as much as the Irish have, it's little wonder. The Jews have the motto Never Forget which came about after the horrors of the Final Solution and Hitler's concentration camps. The Irish run a close second to the Jews for being an oppressed people.

Whereas the Jews have suffered at the hands of many different peoples, the Irish have been persecuted almost exclusively by the British, led by the sanctimoniously self-righteous English. The oppression of the Irish goes back nearly a millenium. Despite the longevity of this persecution, the British have been able, largely, to sweep what they did to the Irish under the historical rug.

The original invasion of Ireland by the English took place between 1168 and 1171 A.D. Some time
thereafter, Irish were forbidden to have recourse with English laws. Thus began application of the old English saw – Britannia rules the waves – with its perverted approach to the Irish –
Britannia waives the rules.

In 1367, the infamous Statute of Kilkenny was enacted. Among the highlights of the law were (1) that any alliance with the Irish by marriage, nurture of infants or standing sponsors, should be punishable by high treason; (2) that any man of English race taking an Irish name, or using the Irish language, apparel or customs, should forfeit all his lands; and (3) that to adopt or submit to the Brehon (Irish) law was treason. Thus, an Irishman had no recourse under English law, but was guilty of treason if he sought justice from Brehon law. This created a lawless class in society, which in turn subjected the Irish to English penal laws.

In 1649, the town of Drogheda rebelled against the English government. Cromwell brought his army over and put the rebellion down brutally and quickly. Then his army began to massacre every man, woman and child in the town for the next five days. The well-recognized concept of “sanctuary” – where a person may take refuge in a church and remain inviolate so long as he stayed in the church – was violated, as Cromwell’s troops set fire to the church. When people sought to flee the burning building, they were killed with the pike. Cromwell, upon returning to England, was hailed as the conqueror of the sub-humans. Those people not killed outright were sent to Barbados as slaves. There are those who believe that the Irish slaves were then forced to breed with African slaves in order to take the Irish out of them and to propagate a more valuable biracial slave.

To give this some historical perspective, in 1942 Czech partisans killed Heydrich, Hitler’s representative in Prague. Upon learning of the death of his trusted representative, Hitler ordered that reprisals take place. The town of Lidice was wiped off the map, with the women and children sent to concentration camps and the men burned alive in barns. Any men trying to flee the flames were machine-gunned. For this the Germans were rightly vilified. The English have suffered no such condemnation. There is no qualitative difference between the two events.

Thereafter, in 1692, the insidious Penal Laws were enacted. To summarize just a few of
them, Catholics (which almost every Irishman was at the time) were:

Deprived of their right to sit in Parliament

Forbidden election to Parliament

Denied the right to vote

Fined 60 pounds for absence from the Protestant form of worship

Forbidden from traveling five miles from their homes, from keeping arms, maintaining suits at law, or from being guardians or executors

Subject to the vote of any four justices of the peace who could banish an Irishman from Ireland for failure to attend Protestant services

Subject to the vote of any two justices of the peace who could force the Irishman to abjure his faith or forfeit his property

Forbidden from employing a Catholic instructor to educate their children

If priests who came to the country, subject to immediate hanging

From 1845 to 1849, Ireland suffered a potato blight that ruined the main foodstuff for most of the Irish peasantry. There was plenty of food available, but it was shipped to England as payment for the rents that came due on the lands the Irish were forced to lease from English landlords. Rather than give the starving Irish peasants food or money for food, the landlords instead agreed to buy the Irish one-way tickets to America, Australia, Canada and other faraway lands, the way then open to confiscate their lands. During the Famine years, Ireland had a population of approximately eight million people. The Census of 1951 showed that Ireland’s population decreased by two million people.

By 1911, Ireland’s population was cut in half.

A Frenchman observer at the time said of Ireland:

“[It is] a conquered country, from which nothing need be feared,
from which nothing could be hoped; a country that was done for, that
could never revive, and towards which the best policy to pursue
was to draw from it as large a tribute as possible, of men for
the army, and of money for the Empire.”

During this time, Irishmen were forced to fight for King or Queen and Country – Great
Britain. Millions of Ireland’s sons died to keep the British Empire afloat.  In many cases, it was because it was the only work they could find.

The nefarious Black and Tans -- now remembered if at all as the name of a beverage -- were actually decommissioned British soldiers who had no jobs to which they could return from the Great War. Given carte blanche by the Crown, they terrorized the Irish citizenry as best they could. The acts perpetrated by these troops were mostly criminal and had little if anything to do with keeping the peace.

At the time of Partition, the British agreed to carve out three counties -- Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan -- and give them to the Republic of Ireland. Rather than the magnanimous gesture that the British proclaimed it, it as a cynical manuever that gave away three predominantly Catholic counties so as to preserve a Protestant majority in Northern Ireland. This allowed the British to claim that the majority in Northern Ireland desired to remain a part of the British Empire and not join the Republic.

The UK is today America's greatest ally. We are inundated by English actors and shows. We fawn over their accent and spend untold hours riveted to the television whenever one of the royals does anything. The British have apologized for their role in enslaving Africans, but to date there has never been anything approaching an official apology for the centuries of massacres, enforced exiles, thefts of land and dragooning of millions of Irishmen to further British imperial aims.

The British have employed the best and longest publicity campaign to hide or at least blur their crimes from the world. Justice delayed is justice denied.

On St. Patrick's Day, I think about the sacrifices my Irish ancestors made for their, and my, freedom.

(c) 2012 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Pronouncing Spanish

Admittedly, I'm in a very narrow minority on this issue. It's such a narrow minority, in fact, that I may be the only person in the group.

The issue -- if indeed there is one -- deals with the treatment of the proper pronunciation of Spanish surnames. True, other than Latinos and people I am probably the only person who cares about such a thing. But to me it's not a meaningless issue. It's a matter of respect and basic decency.

We are infatuated with French names, for whatever reason. Spanish names and surnames, however, are given short shrift. For example, French names beginning with the letter H are pronounced with the H silent; Spanish names, on the other hand, always have the H pronounced. The problem with that is that as in French, in Spanish the H is silent, too.

Sports shows are notorious for this. Thierry Henry, notably, has his surname pronounced on-REE -- as it should be. But anyone with the surname Hernández knows that it's pronounced Her-NAN-dez -- not as it should be, which is er-NAN-des. If we can make an H silent in French, we should be able to make it silent in Spanish.

There are other athletes who are neither Spanish nor French whose surnames begin with a silent H and their names are pronounced correctly: Robert Horry and Philip Humber, for example. Yet anyone named Hector or Hernández surely will hear the H that is supposed to be silent.

If you want to have some fun, listen as the ESPN anchors perform linguistic gymnastics to pronounce José María Olazábal's surname with the Spanish Z sounding like a softened th but then Seve Ballesteros' and Sergio García's comparatively easier names are butchered.

As I said, I'm in a minority of one. So be it. I'm right about this one.

(c) 2012 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles